Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

With much anxiety and lament, I participate in a debate of very considerable moment. The Prime Minister, on 24 November, made a national security statement. It has now been debated over some time, with many of my colleagues participating in the debate from this side of the House. Interestingly, it was only a little while ago that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was arguing that there should be a debate on these issues, and, in that context, I note that this particular debate is being conducted largely by members of the government.

My colleagues wanted to make it very, very clear that the recent mass killings of so many innocent civilians in Paris, France; in Turkey; in Iraq; in Mali; in Bangladesh and in Afghanistan have no place in the world in which we live. This is terrorism, conducted for reasons that are sometimes, for us, very difficult to understand. We have certain values; we are open, democratic societies. We want to function with people from all over the world—to be able to live together and share each other's culture, ethnicity and faith. I think the world has changed very significantly, but, by some, that is not readily recognised.

We have seen a problem emerge in the Middle East which has led to efforts to overthrow existing governments in Muslim societies, and to provide a place from which terrorist activity can be conducted and can pose a risk to us. They are about, as the Prime Minister said, fomenting resentment between Muslim and non-Muslim populations. They have been about creating an environment in which extremist groups are able to pursue objectives. But the Prime Minister noted that this organisation, as we see it, is essentially weak—and it is weak, in part, because we have allowed a situation to develop that has been extraordinarily difficult to resolve and where there are differences of view, even amongst our friends, about the way forward.

We have seen a situation where enormous numbers of people have been dislocated, and I have witnessed, personally, in the areas surrounding Iraq and Syria, the devastating impact that this situation of hostility has produced. People have fled into Jordan in their hundreds of thousands, into Lebanon in several millions and into Turkey in much the same way. In Syria, some seven million people are, additionally, displaced.

It is an extraordinarily difficult issue to deal with because the participants, and those that surround them, have different views about how this situation should be resolved. It is not hard to understand, when you look at the Assad regime, which has maintained itself in power by dividing and, inevitably, conquering. It remains there, in part, because it has been able to put together alliances involving the different populations of its own country—the Alawi, the Christian, the Druze, the Shiah and some of the Sunni Muslims—against what is often seen to be a Sunni Muslim majority. You have countries surrounding Syria, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who want to produce change. You have other countries surrounding Syria, like Iran and Lebanon, where the Hezbollah want to maintain the Syrian regime in power. Similarly, you get the United States supporting, ostensibly, its allies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and Russia focusing on how it can build linkages into Syria to maintain places for its own presence in the Mediterranean.

This is a situation which is extraordinarily difficult to resolve. In my view, it is not going to be resolved through countries like Australia seeking simply, with other allies, to bomb some parties into submission. ISIL have, over a period of time, been able to obtain a degree of power in areas of Syria and Iraq. They have done so through very considerable use of money and military capacity and they have been the most objectionable regime that you could imagine, in terms of what we understand as civilised society—accepting people with different views and different perspectives.

There is a 60-nation-strong coalition, as the Prime Minister says, whose objective is to disrupt, degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL. The Prime Minister argues that a full strategy, not just military but financial, diplomatic and political, is required. He recognised in his statement that Australia is a very significant contributor to the air strikes but that that is doing little more than disrupting the regime. What is needed is a political solution. We are endeavouring to support Iraq and to give it advice as to how it might be able to use its own forces to help resolve this issue.

But it is quite clear that, while some might regard a Western troop arrangement that could produce, in their view, a secure outcome, the problem we have with the way in which events have unfolded in the Middle East is that this can sometimes be enormously counterproductive. It is in that context that I think it is important to recognise that the air campaign has had limited success. It has halted ISIL's momentum. The capacity of ISIL has been degraded. Kurdish and Iraqi forces have won back some territory. But we have a long way to go.

It is from this genesis that we are seeing risks even to ourselves. With electronic communications, with the way in which these people are pursuing their objectives, we are in an extraordinarily difficult position. It is important to note, in the context of what we are experiencing with those people reaching out to people within our own community, that we have to have a very significant strategy to counter violent extremism here in Australia. The government has committed very considerable funds to doing that. We have been debating other laws, including the laws in relation to citizenship deprivation, that are part of an overall strategy. But I think it is very important to understand the importance of that strategy in the context of the nature of the society that we are here in Australia. As the Prime Minister notes, we are a community that has been supported by the government's four-tier approach, supporting our strong and multicultural society; helping institutions and sectors in our community to combat violent extremism and its ideology, wherever it emerges; challenging and undermining the appeal of terrorist propaganda, especially as we see it online; and intervening to divert individuals away from their violent extremist views.

Over a period of time, I have been very close to our culturally diverse communities. I think it is tremendously important to recognise that we have people of different faiths, different ethnicities, different cultures. It is never perfect, but I think it works better here than it does anywhere else in the world. It is very important, in the way in which we respond to these issues, that we do not undermine that cohesion. I mention that because, at times, we focus so much on the people who are seeking to undermine us that we think it reflects a much broader view in our society than it in fact does.

We have been extraordinarily well serviced by our policing organisations and by our security organisations, which I know have used intelligence in a way that can contain this threat to our society. We ought to be enormously grateful for the way in which they have identified those risks that can potentially harm us. That is not to say that we might not see some further extremist acts here in our community, but we need to be very careful that we do not divide ourselves or allow ourselves to be divided. I think these interests want us to overreact. In that context, I continue to take, to all the communities I meet with, a very strong view about the way in which this government is supportive of our cultural diversity, acknowledges the different streams, focuses on correctly identifying the real risks we face and seeks to address those rather than create more difficult situations for us in the future.

In the context of the Prime Minister's speech, I think it is very important that this battle in which we are involved has had a very significant impact in countries that surround us. It has had a significant impact on populations in countries that we see as our friends and allies. The events that took place in France, in Iraq, in Turkey, in Mali, in Bangladesh and in Afghanistan have troubled me enormously. This should not be seen as just a matter that has impacted upon our friends; this is an issue that has impacted upon the world community. Our approach to dealing with it needs to be clearly strategic and well framed. In the Prime Minister's address to the parliament you see very clearly that the government is about protecting Australia and its interests first and foremost. The government has a clear counter-terrorism strategy which calls for effective leadership in the Australian community and emphasises the importance of maintaining our cultural diversity but also identifying the risks that are there.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I am grateful that the government has seen fit to give the parliament an opportunity to put this matter clearly before the Australian people.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context